BS: 10,000 arrested in US today

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 04:25 PM

You criticise if they take steps to plan for terrorist attacks, yet blame them for not being prepared. It seems to me like no matter WHAT is done, you will treat it as the wrong thing to have done.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 04:26 PM

I think it would be educational for people to go visit some of these camps. Just see. Tell me about your welcome. The camps are key to whatever the hell is going down with a takeover of the American Government. Can I dot i's and t's? No. Will you simply go see if you can get close to a camp near you? If not, then you might share some of my concerns.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 04:28 PM

Answer this: do YOu think there are sufficient terrorists in the USA to require the numbers of camps that have been built or renovated? Answer me that.I am beginning to think you're more paranoid than I am.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 04:32 PM

"The camps are key to whatever the hell is going down with a takeover of the American Government. "


THAT is what you do not present any evidence about. I have given you a reason for the government to be working on those camps- How do you imply that only your opinion about them is correct? It MAY be, but you have less evidence than I do ( see FEMA publications for mass evacuaction of cites, Civil Defense documents of the 1950's, 60's, 70's, & 80's.


There are a number of government fcilities I do not, as an ordinary citizen, have access to. Try visiting ANY nuclear power plant these days.

I have no problem with your concewrns- just your assertions that possibility is the same as proof.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 04:33 PM

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 04:34 PM

"Answer this: do YOu think there are sufficient terrorists in the USA to require the numbers of camps that have been built or renovated? Answer me that.I am beginning to think you're more paranoid than I am. "

No, but that is NOT what I have given as a reason for the camps in my post.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 04:45 PM

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 04:48 PM

None of us have PROOF. But when I connect the dots, I don't like the picture I see. That's the way it is, BB.

As a further thing to add, Canada too has camps. NORTH AMERICA HAS CAMPS. Canada is not on any terrorist list and we don't have large disasters wherein we have to mass evacuate cities. So why the camps her? I ask myself the same question I ask you. And neither of us have answers. Just dots that we perceive differently. I don't think you are necessarily wrong. Nor do I think our governments have OUR best interests at heart.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 04:56 PM

For the curious.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 05:15 PM

When I connect the dots of what the liberals here say, I see an attempt to let a minority, because of a self-percieved view of being "infinately more comapssionate, wise and intellegent..." become dictators of what the nation can do. If you do not believe the government has OUR best interests at heart, why should I believe that the self-declared "better" people have mine, or the majority of the country's even in their thoughts?

Bush has sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States. He has certain responsibilities as defined by the constitution. The people telling me he shopuld be removed because THEY do not like his actions have made no oath, and seem to be more interested in pushing their own agenda than even the far Right.

I do not agree with all the decisions of this administration- But that does not mean that they should be removed.

A healthy suspicion of the opposing party is fine- but I think that the liberals have gone even farther than the ultra-right in being biased. I do not, IMO, feel that we would be as safe as we are (which is not what I would LIKE) if we were under a Democratic administration. Others may differ- that is fine, but the more conservative side WON the election, which was the means that we change our government leaders. I lived through eight years of Clinton: Liberals can just try to elect their own person in the future. MOST of the dictatorial talk I hear is from the LEFT, demanding that the entire country do only what a minority of those voting support. Had they run a candidate that appealed to a more moderate base, the Dems would have run- It is not that the majority supports everything that Bush does, but that even fewer support what the Democratic candidate seemed to represent. This is called "politics"

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/198304_robert05.html

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 05:18 PM

I would like to know, if the camps are for people who, in the context of a terrorist attack, get infected with biological warfare agents, why there is so much secrecy and heavy guarding of the camps now? Why are people being threatened if they look at or take pictures of the camps?

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 05:20 PM

I am not suggesting that Bush be removed. I am saying that it does not matter WHO is in power. The President no longer controls things. So don't get sidetracked with Bush, or Clinton, or anyone else. None of those people are the issue. The issue is this: you are about to have your country taken over. That is the issue. Bush matters not at all.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 05:26 PM

CarolC,

For the same reason that people taking pictures of ANY secure facility are "threatened" - IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. Whether the camps SHOULD be secure is a matter for debate- but the fact is that there is a policy not to allow pictures of any secure facility, because it endangers the ability to HAVE a secure facility. Perhaps you think that we should publish the guard schedules at the various nuclear plants, so that you can know who is in the guard post at a given time?

We HAVE been attacked by terrorists: We may have thwarted additioanl attacks- it is NOT in the best interest of the people of this country to provide information to those trying to harm us as to how to do so better. I would hope that the means that protect us fron attack, or preparations to deal with those attacks, would be at least as protected as my personnal information and records- Are YOU willing to open all your records to the entire world? Bank accounts, health information, court records? I WANT to see some degree of limitation of information, especially that which directly affects my well-being.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 05:28 PM

brucie,

HOW is the country being taken over?

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 05:33 PM

beardedbruce, I don't see it as being about politics or about one administration or another. They're all either crooks and criminals, or puppets. But I know what the agenda is. They have spelled it out quite clearly in the Project for the New American Century. Their goal is world domination. This is what they, themselves, have stated as their goal, and all of the actions of every administration that I know anything about have moved us incrementally, and inexorably toward the achievement of that goal.

I think I know why Jimmy Carter has been working so hard for philanthropic programs since he left office. It's because he's doing pennance for his complicity in these crimes against humanity. I don't blame him. I'd be working very hard doing pennance too if I were him.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 05:40 PM

My bank accounts concern only me and my bank, beardedbruce. Not a good analogy. Those camps are being constructed and renovated in secret. We are entitled to transparency in our government. That's what makes ours a "government by the consent of the governed". To keep secrets like those camps violates the core fundamental principle of our system of government and our way of life.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 05:42 PM

CarolC,

You are certainly entitled to your opinions, as I am to mine.

"They're all either crooks and criminals, or puppets."
... no real arguement here- but I tried to support the ones who, IMO would have policies that protected the citizens in the most effective manner. A judgement call that each of us should make, and not use a knee-jerk reaction of "Conservative-BAD" ( Or "Liberal-BAD")that seems to be the norm here on Mudcat.



"But I know what the agenda is. They have spelled it out quite clearly in the Project for the New American Century. Their goal is world domination. This is what they, themselves, have stated as their goal,"

I do not agree with this, any more than you agree that the Palestinians are trying to destroy Israel... If I postulate a conspiracy, that does not make it true- One would need to provide some evidence to support what one has stated to be "FACT"

You ARE entitled to your opinion- but I need not agree with it.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 05:43 PM

Beardedbruce,

Given the number of 'arguments' (read fights) we have had in the past, I wish to say something that will shock you. I have the highest regard for your intelligence--for your ability to think.I have read lots of your sonnets, and I also appreciated your views on the asteroid and the potential difficulties in that area. I see that you are very human, very caring and that occasionally you keep that as a private part of your character. Cool by me.

To say again: you are very smart. I don't pretend to be as smart as you (OK, sometimes I pretend). I have nothing to gain by writing about something I can't prove. And specifically, I have nothing to gain by telling you any of the above. I simply want you to understand this from me. I do not care about Bush, Martin (PM of Canada), Blair, et.al. They are pawns; fronts. The world is on the verge of a very big sociological/demographic/economic change. These world leaders have very little power themselves. They do as they are told to do.

Let me ask you this. Do you truly think that Bush is smart enough to design those Ececutive Orders? In other words, do you really think 'someone' isn't pulling his strings? If it helps, I'll put it this way: All world leaders have their strings pulled by _______________. If we can fill in the blank with a proper noun, we will likely inhabit the same camp together. This ain't about Bush anymore. That has been a smokescreen. It has worked. Liberals, conservatives, democrats and republicans distrust each other. We have been divided. I wonder what comes next.

A good friend of mine said the following after gun registration was enacted in Canada: "What is the government going to do that I don't like?" Ask yourself the same question. One doesn't build prisons on the presumption that the crime rate will rise significantly. One builds prisons to keep people in. The question that begs is this: Why does the US government need enough 'jail' space for hundreds of thousands of people? Why?

If you visit a camp, please let me know what you find. I am going to do my best to visit one or two in this country. I will return the favour.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 05:47 PM

CarolC- (crossposted)

If the information about the camps would increase the hazard to the citizens who might be using them after a terrorist attack, it is the REQUIREMENT of the government to keep that information restricted. That is why we have elected representatives to acertain what needs to kept secret- Congress has oversight on things like this.


"We are entitled to transparency in our government. "

NOT in the case where the exposure of the information would be directly harmful to the interests of the citizens of the country. Classified information is a reality that exists.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 06:01 PM

FYI

Last for a while, anyway. Please explain the following--not to me, but to yourself.

The Rex 84 Program
Operation Cable Splicer
WTC 7

Thanks, all.

PS Robomatic: I read Rainbow Six years ago. Not one of his best.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 06:01 PM

It's not my opinion. It IS a fact. I am simply passing on to you what they, themselves, have stated as their goal. It's all spelled out quite clearly in their own words, in their own publication by their own organization right here (in case you haven't figured it out yet... they wrote this document themselves about what they have planned/do plan to do)...

Project for the new American Century

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 06:04 PM

brucie,

Thank you for the comments...


"The question that begs is this: Why does the US government need enough 'jail' space for hundreds of thousands of people? Why?"

I have given one possible reason, as an area to restrain those exposed to some contagious disease. I do not insist that is the only, or even the correct answer, but you continue to ignore even that possibility. I do not KNOW- and it seems likely that none here do, or will in the near future. I can see reasons NOT to allow information about them to be public knowledge- and I DO have concerns that Congress has performed it's mandated oversight.

One can always assume that there is some conspiricy- but that does not demonstrate it's existence. Perhaps it is all being caused by "Higher Beings" for some purpose beyound our comprehension? Does that make you feel any better? If not, you obviously lack enlightenment and the proper world view..... ( sarcasm)

Am I concerned about the loss of liberty?

YES- but I see it as much in the limitations of free speech on campuses and the elimination of 2nd amendment rights to gun ownership as I do in the government policies since 9/11. If the liberals, who supposedly are in favor of thr rights given us by the Constitution, are willing to remove my rights because "times have changed", and "it would be safer not to have guns around" , where is the protection for ANY of the Bill of Rights? "Free speech might provoke unrest- have to limit it for the greater good"- and only those religions that we are comfortable with should be allowed...
Look at what the US did to the Mormons- do you really think that
any religion would be "safe" once the Bill of Rights was shown to be "flexible"?

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 06:05 PM

Hi, Carol. I read that document about 18 months ago. Interesting that Paul Wolfowitz is one of the authors, and it is equally interesting that he is now the leader of the World Bank.

PFTNAC reads like a blueprint for world domination. Plain and simple.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 06:09 PM

BB, I too have a great respect for the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. My worry is that they are about to be usurped. I understand how much you love the USA. I feel that way about Canada. I fear we are about to lose the places we love.

As to the comments: You are certainly deserving of them IMO and I mean them, too.

I have to get for a while. Hope to see y'all later.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 06:15 PM

CarolC,

Are you stating that the US should NOT act in what it percieves as it's own self-interest?


I presume you have some proof that this group is the secret cabal controling the present government?

" But I know what the agenda is. They have spelled it out quite clearly in the Project for the New American Century. Their goal is world domination. This is what they, themselves, have stated as their goal, and all of the actions of every administration that I know anything about have moved us incrementally, and inexorably toward the achievement of that goal."

WHO are THEY?

IMO, the Clinton administration did this country no favors in it's military policies.

The FACT is that the Palestinians have declared their goal is the destruction of Israel- SO you will now agree that they are the ones at fault in the Middle East? ( rhetorical question)

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 06:24 PM

It's really odd that I find myself feeling this way, but lately (last couple of years), I've been feeling more afraid of the US government than of the militia movement. I used to know people who were interested in (although not directly involved with) the militia movement. I thought they were all crackpots and gun nuts, and they scared me. (I lived in an area with an active militia movement at the time.) But these days I find myself feeling less afraid of them than of my own government.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 06:29 PM

What the government sees as being in its own interests may not be the same thing as what is in the best interests of people of this country, beardedbruce. And that is what scares me. Because I see the government regularly exhibiting behavior that demonsrates to me that what they really care about is accumulating and holding on to power, at the expense of the citizens of this country, and with no regard for what is best for our country as a democracy, rather than as a seat of empire.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 06:31 PM

Their names are on the document, beardedbruce.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 06:41 PM

I was stationed at Grissom AFB, and I know there are high barbed wire fences and lights, but they weren't designed to keep people IN. I've been on Ft Benjamin Harrison, and spent time in the camp for exercises. I don't remember large amounts of concertina wire. If there had been, I'd remember it since I likely would have had some close, personal contact with it. There were nests of rattlesnakes.

When you aren't familiar with a place, whether a fence points in or out depends on what someone tells you AND whether you believe them. I'm fairly suspicious of anything someone tries to get me to believe, no matter which side it's coming from. For instance, "FEMA detention facility". What's the difference between a detention facility and a refugee camp? The answer is that the true difference is in how it's used, when it's used.

As for why there are so many FEMA facilities, they plan where to set up camps if local or regional disasters occur.

There isn't open land anywhere in the US that couldn't be turn into a detention camp with concertina wire and armed guards. There isn't a military facility or kids' camp that couldn't be easily adapted. This concentration camp page is intended to feed off paranoia and boost the membership of anti-government militia groups. It's also somewhat of a diversion from things that are more provable, even if they don't seem quite so evil.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 06:56 PM

Secret refugee camps seem like a reasonable thing to me. Maybe you're right.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 07:41 PM

Secret refugee camps? That sounds more convoluted and improbable than the other scenario. We know where they are. They can't be defended on the basis of nobody knowing where they are. So why is their purpose being kept secret?

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 07:52 PM

I just re-thought that remark. Wouldn't make lotsa sense for refugee camps to be kept secret, would it.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: DougR
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 07:55 PM

Arghhhhhhhh! Run for your life! The sky is definitely falling. Ten thousand fugitives are arrested and the liberals are scared to death. Just be glad they are off the street.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 08:12 PM

Well, Doug, at least we have you to clarify the mystery for us, and for that I am grateful.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 09:09 PM

brucie,

If there were several thousand contagious people who, if let loose in the general population, would cause the death of hundreds of thousands, would YOU want the exact location and details of the place known to the entire world, like the terrorists who would have exposed them in the first place?

The fact that the general location is know, but details are not is in accordance with the ongoing ( ie, has been in place for longer than most of us have been alive) guidelines for secure facilities.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 09:18 PM

That is true, BB. Given the scenario you posit, I would agree.

Now, about

The Rex 84 Program
Operation Cable Splicer
WTC 7

Have you had a chance to look this stuff up?

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 09:29 PM

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), founded 1979 to the Civil Defense program, answers to the President, via the National Security Council. A Miami Herald article published 5 July 1987 reported that U.S. Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North, then employed to draw up national security contingency plans, often met then FEMA director Louis O. Giuffrida between 1982 and 1984. They allegedly discussed FEMA's role in the event of civil unrest and the imposition of martial law. Giuffrida produced a plan for mass roundup and imprisonment of subversives, recycled from a plan he had devised in 1970 for the Army War College in case of an uprising of black militants.

The Miami Herald got a copy of the 2 Aug 1984 memo detailing the plan, to be included in an Executive Order or National Security Directive that President Reagan was supposed to sign. According to various right-wing web pages, this is NSDD 58. The Herald story says it's unclear whether it was signed.

REX-84, according to the Winter 1990 (#33) issue of the Covert Action Information Bulletin, was a series of simulations designed to coordinate the various agencies, civilian and military, needed under the above arrangement. One of these wargames was called REX-84/Night Train.

Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are the two sub programs which will be implemented once the Rex 84 program is initiated for its proper purpose. Garden Plot is the program to control the population. Cable Splicer is the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government. FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will head up all operations. The Presidential Executive Orders already listed on the Federal Register also are part of the legal framework for this operation.



But of course, the government has contingency plans for just about everything, like a nuclear strike on Canada, or Japan, and the invasion of New Zealand, or the Vatican. There are a lot of people whose job it is to think of the unthinkable, and come up with a plan- The FAILURE to do this in one case was the goverment's weakness on 9/11. Just because there is a plan to show HOW we could do it does not imply an intent to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 09:53 PM

Beautiful, isn't it? It can all be explained with very logical and understandable 'arguments'. (One of the exercises involved a public school.)

WTC 7 is a bit more difficult to explain than that.

WTC 7

Neat how everything is so tight and all the WTC debris is gone, huh? Gone far away. No way to check for anything. No way to check for residue of explosives in the WTC 7 structure. No way to study the materials involved. AND, cleaned up so quickly, too. Almost like--well, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 10:16 PM

way too efficient for the government- sounds like the NWO, to me...

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 10:28 PM

The camp in Alaska. Supposed to be big. Why? Not enough people IN Alaska to have to have a camp that size. Whether that's sick people or people detained because a judge has determined that they represent a 'terrorist' danger to the US. That definition has becaome a moving target, BTW. However, if Americans are comfortable with it, then I guess a Canadian national should shut up, right?

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 10:47 PM

U.S. plans to invade Canada after the First World War? This is one of the most bizarre stories I've come across on the Internet, and the most bizarre part is that it's true. The U.S. military really did develop a "Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan--Red" in the 1920s and '30s, and it really did include provisions for an invasion of Canada by the United States.

The document was declassified in 1974, so this isn't really a new story, but there has been some hoopla about it lately. Concerns in some quarters notwithstanding, the whole thing was just a theoretical exercise in military planning. The brass would have made better use of their resources planning for a war with Germany, but that wasn't politically expedient. They reasoned that planning for unlikely wars was better than no planning at all. War Plan Red was never intended to be put into action except in the event of a war with the United Kingdom, an eventuality that everyone would agree was highly unlikely after about 1900.

In the color codes used at that time, "Red" referred not to Canada (that was "Crimson"), but to the United Kingdom. The proposed invasion of Canada wasn't an end in itself; it was just the easiest way to hurt the U.K. The plan called for quickly seizing the key port of Halifax to prevent British resupply; cutting communication between eastern and western Canada by capturing Winnipeg; securing bridgeheads near Buffalo, Detroit, and Sault Ste. Marie; and attacking Quebec overland from New England. If everything went according to plan, the U.S. military hoped to take the Great Lakes region and St. Lawrence valley before moving on the prairies and British Columbia. Later when U.S. naval forces were built up, they might be able to take Bermuda and Britain's Caribbean possessions on the road toward victory.

But there would be a price to pay for any such war. Planners essentially wrote off the Philippines, Guam, and Samoa if the British tried to take them early in the war. Planners also anticipated a possible invasion of the U.S. Pacific coast by an allied force from Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. The last two unfairly had to share the color Scarlet, despite there being plenty of shades of red available for everyone. Who wouldn't want to read about the army of Fuchsia or the navy of Salmon? It just goes to show you that U.S. military planners were a bunch of Maroons.

War Plan Red wasn't the first contingency plan for a war with Britain that included an invasion of Canada. It was just the best known and (as far as we know) last. There had been others over the previous decades, many of them submitted to the Military Information Division by military officers working on their own time. War Plan Red was one of many "color plans" developed in a fairly systematic way in the 1920s and '30s. Except for "Orange" (war with Japan), the plans were primarily academic exercises, lacking detail and offering only broad outlines of strategy. The plans were an outgrowth of military reorganizations that had led to the creation of the U.S. Army War College (1903) and the U.S. Army War Plans Division (1921). Planning capability having been established, the military figured its planners had better get in some practice. The result was a dramatic increase in formal planning for various military contingencies, most of them unlikely.

The idea of systematically developing contingency plans was borrowed from the Prussian-dominated German military, which had been doing similar work since the previous century. Generally the plans weren't requested by civilian authorities (which would indicate an expectation of putting them into practice) but were prepared by the military on its own. However, the plans would be on hand in case the civilian authorities wanted them. There is no evidence that War Plan Red or any other twentieth-century plan for the invasion of Canada was requested by civilian authorities.

Much of the Army's work on Red was done in the mid-1920s. It evidently didn't attract much attention from the Navy until about 1930, because the admirals were preoccupied with Orange before that. They would be preoccupied with Orange again after that too; the period around 1930 was a brief respite from work on Orange, which was largely finished but would soon need to be updated.

Other color plans included "White" (domestic uprising), "Green" (war with Mexico), "Gray" (war with any one of the Caribbean republics), and "Purple" (war in Central America). One scenario pitted the U.S. against the combined forces of France (Gold), Canada, and Britain. Another (Red-Orange) pitted the U.S. against a combination of Japan and Britain. This last had more military justification before 1924, when the Anglo-Japanese Treaty was still in force. This treaty would have required Britain to join a war between the U.S. and Japan, but only if another great power (such as France or Russia) also declared war on Japan.

For political reasons, "Black" (war with Germany) was not highly developed at all. When word of planning for a war with Germany was leaked to the press in 1927, the isolationist public was outraged and the project was shelved. This echoed the situation in 1916 when President Wilson threatened to fire the entire general staff if he learned they were planning for war with Germany. (This was an election year when Wilson's slogan was, "He kept us out of war.") Serious planning for war with Germany was not done until 1939 when work began on the five "Rainbow" plans. These dealt with simultaneous threats from both Atlantic and Pacific--in other words, war with the Axis countries. By that time the threat was too great to ignore, even though public sentiment was still strongly isolationist.

Apparently in the 1920s only certain scenarios could safely be considered: Japan because of the threat it posed to the Philippines, and Latin America because of U.S. interests there. But war against a European power could be contemplated only if such a war was so unlikely that it could be brushed off as a mere exercise if the newspapers got wind of it. That was essentially the case with War Plan Red, though presumably it would have been dusted off and used in the unlikely event the U.S. declared war on Britain. The plan was called "obsolete" and "inapplicable" but was not officially withdrawn until 1939. It was not destroyed as other obsolete plans were because the military felt the naval part of the plan would be helpful in fighting any enemy in the Atlantic.

Much of the recent attention paid to War Plan Red has been due to the writings of one Floyd W. Rudmin, a social psychologist with American and Canadian citizenship. He wrote a 1993 book, which I have not read, titled Bordering on Aggression: Evidence of U.S. Military Preparations against Canada. He views Canadians' generally blasé attitude toward the plan since it was declassified as evidence of blindness to the American threat. He sees the plan in a much more sinister light than do most military historians, implying that there was a high likelihood of its being implemented.

There is a much better, though less recent, example in support of Rudmin's contention of Canadian blindness to the U.S. threat. This was the 1890s border dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana, in which Canada had no direct part. The jingoistic president Grover Cleveland viewed the dispute through the lens of the Monroe Doctrine and sided with Venezuela against Britain, threatening war unless Britain submitted to arbitration by himself. Some British and Canadian officers took the threat of war quite seriously, but Canadian civilians generally laughed it off. In fact, U.S. military planning was much more extensive than the public realized at the time, and Canada would have been the first target. Secretary of the Navy H.A. Herbert in 1896 ordered a plan to seize control of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence in the event of war. As I noted above, the fact that the military makes plans doesn't necessarily mean anything, but a civilian request for a plan indicates that it might well be put into action. However, it's not clear whether Cleveland knew what Herbert was up to. Eventually tensions subsided and the border dispute was resolved by arbitration in 1899. I won't say we were ever on the brink of war during the Venezuela crisis, but we were surely closer then than at any time during the era of War Plan Red. Within a few years, though, various events including the Spanish-American War (and the British reaction to it), the Boer War (and the American reaction to it), and the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty made an Anglo-American war a remote possibility.

The United States wasn't the only country preparing for war in North America after the First World War. There is no evidence Britain continued to plan for war with the U.S. after the war (perhaps because they were freer to plan for war with more likely enemies). But in 1921 Canada's Director of Military Operations and Intelligence, Col. J. Sutherland-Brown, produced a remarkable document called "Defence Scheme Number 1" to deal with possible war with the U.S. As in the U.S., isolationism ran high in Canada and it was politically difficult to plan for war in Europe. "Defence Scheme Number 3" did eventually deal with that scenario, but not until a decade later. ("Defence Scheme Number 2" dealt with war against Japan.) DS1, as the name implies, was primarily a defensive plan, but it included invasions of the U.S. in the first days of war as a means of gaining time until troops from elsewhere in the Empire could arrive. These invasions would have been aimed at Albany, Minneapolis, Seattle, and other northern cities, to be followed by a slow withdrawal and destruction of bridges and railroads. The plan was withdrawn in 1929, about the same time the finishing touches were being put on War Plan Red. There is no evidence that U.S. and Canadian planners knew of each other's work.



NOW you can worry...

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 11:29 PM

We know we will be invaded--or we'll have to play ball. That is understood by many Canadians. However, the camps in the US will, IMO, tie up lots of people.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 11:53 PM

let me see... 600 camps, 20K each... 12 million people- so only another 280+ million left to march north...

United States
Population: 293,027,571 (July 2004 est.)

brucie, didn't you notice the dates of the plans to invade Canada? But maybe you are right to worry- they are still around.....

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 11:56 PM

The US will need water. We have lots of that. In much the way we see that when the US wanted Iraq oil it simply went and took it, in that way the US will simply invade us and take what it wants. I expect Canadians will be slaughtered in the process.

Your country is set, IMO, on world domination. Canada is in the world. I think your government would not be at all bothered by destroying this country.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 12:03 AM

"when the US wanted Iraq oil it simply went and took it, in that way the US will simply invade us and take what it wants."


WHAT OIL? The US is shipping petroleum products INTO Iraq, to support the new government. With what we have used in this war, we are not getting anything in the way of oil from Iraq. If we buy it at world market prices, HOW ARE WE TAKING IT FROM ANYONE?

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 01:04 AM

beardedbruce, did you actually read what you put in your 16 Apr 05 - 09:29 PM post?

What you have in that post supports what brucie and I have been talking about. Especially this bit: Garden Plot is the program to control the population. Cable Splicer is the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government. FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will head up all operations.

And this bit: They allegedly discussed FEMA's role in the event of civil unrest and the imposition of martial law. Giuffrida produced a plan for mass roundup and imprisonment of subversives

Now why, if they aren't planning on removing our freedoms, do they expect so much civil unrest that they would need to impose martial law? And how do you suppose they would be defining "subversives"? Anybody who isn't happy about having their freedoms removed perhaps?

On the subject of Iraqi oil... the point never was to get oil for the benefit of the people of the US. The point has always been to $ecure the oil $upplie$ for the oil companie$, and to establish a large military presence in the Middle East. That part... the military presence part, is right there in that PNAC document I linked to.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 09:19 AM

CarolC,


"Now why, if they aren't planning on removing our freedoms, do they expect so much civil unrest that they would need to impose martial law? "


from my post-
"A Miami Herald article published 5 July 1987 reported that U.S. Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North, then employed to draw up national security contingency plans, often met then FEMA director Louis O. Giuffrida between 1982 and 1984. They allegedly discussed FEMA's role in the event of civil unrest and the imposition of martial law. Giuffrida produced a plan for mass roundup and imprisonment of subversives, recycled from a plan he had devised in 1970 for the Army War College in case of an uprising of black militants."

Do you understand "CONTINGENCY"?


They are SUPPOSED to have plans to cover what might happen. If there is a nuclear bomb used on Baltimore, I would want them to have some means of controlling the refugees, rather than just letting everyone run around. Maybe SOME of them might get the medical care that they would need, instead of dying curled up in a bed 400 miles away.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 09:44 AM

I can't argue the military presence- but do not think it such a bad thing. If we had it at the time of the tsanumi, aid would have been there even faster than it was. ( A normal peacetime base has large supplies of aid material-contingencies, you know)

As for the oil, I think that there are other forces in the world ( like China) which preclude any "control" of Middle East oil. If we do NOT have a presence there, I suspect we might NOT have access at some point in the future- but that does not mean we would be taking it other than by purchasing. In fact, it is trivial to deny the oil to the entire world ( a couple of hydrogen bombs and it would burn for 100 years), but it would take a lot more capability than we have to selectivly keep any specific countries from getting oil.

IMO, if you had half the concern for the actions that other governments have indicated they would do that you do for what you fear that ours might possibly do, you would think a little more about what you were objecting to the US actually doing.

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 10:16 AM

CarolC,

from my earlier post:
"DS1, as the name implies, was primarily a defensive plan, but it included invasions of the U.S. in the first days of war as a means of gaining time until troops from elsewhere in the Empire could arrive. These invasions would have been aimed at Albany, Minneapolis, Seattle, and other northern cities, to be followed by a slow withdrawal and destruction of bridges and railroads"


Aren't you worried about the Canadians? ( **bg** )

Subject: RE: BS: 10,000 arrested in US today
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 10:59 AM

Brucie blandly asserted as a fact:

The upshoot? FEMA can now over-ride Congress.

You say it is so. You want people to believe it. You have the burden of proof.

Dave Oesterreich